ABSTRACT The recent court judgment of Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd 2019 (5) SA 275 (GP) found BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (BP) guilty of environmental offences. The Court held that BP commenced with listed activities related to upgrades and construction work of filling stations without the necessary environmental authorisations (EAs) required by the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) and the Environmental Conservation Act 73 of 1989 (ECA). Section 24 G of NEMA, however, allows for the rectification of the unlawful commencement or continuation of a listed activity conducted in the absence of the required EAs. Section 24 G therefore permits the ex post facto legalising or retrospective authorisation of the unlawful acts. In the case at hand, BP was found guilty, despite having applied for an ex post facto authorisation. This paper engages with the arguments put forward by the court, reflects on insights brought about by the foreign law, and provides possible recommendations for the retrospective environmental authorisation regime in South Africa.

中文翻译：

---

对Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC诉BP Southern Africa（Pty）Ltd 2019（5）SA 275（GP）的严格评估

摘要Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC诉BP南部非洲（Pty）有限公司2019（5）SA 275（GP）最近的法院判决认定BP南部非洲（Pty）Ltd（BP）犯有环境罪。法院认为，BP在没有加油站的升级和建设工作的情况下就开始了所列活动，而没有1998年《美国国家环境管理法》（NEMA）和《 1989年环境保护法》（ECA）73所要求的必要的环境许可。 。但是，NEMA第24 G条允许纠正在没有所需EA的情况下非法开展或继续进行的所列活动的情况。因此，第24 G条允许事后对违法行为进行合法化或追溯授权。在本案中，BP被判有罪，尽管已申请事后授权。本文结合了法院提出的论点，反思了外国法律带来的见解，并为南非的追溯性环境授权制度提供了可能的建议。